https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784146 The dominant issue was whether the provisional attachment and s.24(1) show-cause notice were invalid for want of prior recording and disclosure of "reasons to believe." The AT held the IO had recorded reasons in writing before issuing the notice and incorporated them in the notice; the Act does not mandate furnishing a separate copy, and the reasons reflected analysis of statements and bank records. The second issue was whether the credited cash during demonetization indicated a benami transaction. The AT treated the unexplained bank receipts and onward RTGS transfers as clinching evidence, and rejected the asserted earth-filling explanation as unsubstantiated. Consequently, no interference was warranted and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:27:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784146 The dominant issue was whether the provisional attachment and s.24(1) show-cause notice were invalid for want of prior recording and disclosure of "reasons to believe." The AT held the IO had recorded reasons in writing before issuing the notice and incorporated them in the notice; the Act does not mandate furnishing a separate copy, and the reasons reflected analysis of statements and bank records. The second issue was whether the credited cash during demonetization indicated a benami transaction. The AT treated the unexplained bank receipts and onward RTGS transfers as clinching evidence, and rejected the asserted earth-filling explanation as unsubstantiated. Consequently, no interference was warranted and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Benami Property Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784146